[bluejak]

mjj29, on 2011-August-01, 16:10, said:

To which you should say "I accept your concession of all the rest of the tricks, so that's 9 off then" and when they argue and call the director ask him to read the section about 'abandoning the hand'.

The TD will then fine you a well-deserved DP for wasting their time and his.

Yes, it is not good to claim in this way usually, though there are circumstances: the last time I did this everyone at the table knew I had already blown two tricks and was very annoyed with myself. Everyone except me thought it hilarious.

There are too many posts here assuming things not in evidence. If you claim without stating a line then either

• there is absolutely no need to state a line and everyone knows it, or
  
• it is a poor claim

Assuming one or the other without knowing the situation gets you nowhere.

Similarly, claiming without showing your cards can be

• perfectly legitimate: everyone knows your hand, or
  
• done to gain psychological points, which is illegal [sadly, I have played with a partner who did this], or
  
• a one-off event in a special situation, in which case we need to know the situation, or
  
• cheating: trying to get away with a bad claim

Again, without knowing the situation we do not know which.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2011-August-02, 07:18, said:

The TD will then fine you a well-deserved DP for wasting their time and his.

Is it wasting the TD's time to expect him to deal with an infraction?

Claiming without showing your hand is illegal, discourteous and sometimes intimidatory. The claimer implies that he expects you to trust him. A corollory is that to ask to see his hand implies that you doubt either his integrity or his analysis. It is invidious to place the defenders in such a position.

It also unfairly disadvantages the defenders: declarer knows what his hand was, but the defenders may not. Therefore declarer is better placed to judge how good the result was.

When someone claims like this against me, I usually just ask to see his hand. I'd like, however, to be able to call the director when this happens, without worrying that I might be fined for wasting police time.

[bluejak]

Certainly you can and should call the TD. It was the rest of mjj's post that was clearly wasting time.

When you offer two completely different situations [as you describe and as mjj describes] it should come as no surprise that I think the ruling should be different.

[mjj29]

bluejak, on 2011-August-02, 08:48, said:

Certainly you can and should call the TD. It was the rest of mjj's post that was clearly wasting time.

When you offer two completely different situations [as you describe and as mjj describes] it should come as no surprise that I think the ruling should be different.

In what way does returning your hand to the board without showing it and without making any kind of claim statement not fulfill "A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand" (L68B1)?

Regardless of the above I don't think it is ever correct procedure and is certainly always discourteous. (doing so to accede to an opponents claim or concession is clearly different).

[G_R__E_G]

The laws state that you "should" state your line of play. They do not state that you "must" state your line of play. As an example, yesterday I threw in LHO on trick 11 leaving me with the KJ of trump in my hand and the ace of trump gone (the Q was still out). I showed my hand a said that the last 2 tricks were mine. When you claim in this manner you are running the risk of the Director ruling against you by saying that you might play it incorrectly but claiming this way is not inherently a violation of the law. Mike is correct that you don't "have" to state a line of play but it's probably the smartest thing to do if there's any doubt at all - just ask Jimmy Cayne.

[mjj29]

G_R__E_G, on 2011-August-02, 09:38, said:

The laws state that you "should" state your line of play. They do not state that you "must" state your line of play. As an example, yesterday I threw in LHO on trick 11 leaving me with the KJ of trump in my hand and the ace of trump gone (the Q was still out). I showed my hand a said that the last 2 tricks were mine. When you claim in this manner you are running the risk of the Director ruling against you by saying that you might play it incorrectly but claiming this way is not inherently a violation of the law. Mike is correct that you don't "have" to state a line of play but it's probably the smartest thing to do if there's any doubt at all - just ask Jimmy Cayne.

"Should" defines correct procedure; not doing it is an infraction (if rarely penalised). See the intro to the laws. It _is_ wrong not to state your line of play.

[G_R__E_G]

Ok, if you say so. Until they upgrade the "should" to at least a "shall" I'm going to keep doing it my way. Even at the "shall" level I might not change. Now "must" - that I would respect.

[jh51]

mjj29, on 2011-August-02, 10:30, said:

"Should" defines correct procedure; not doing it is an infraction (if rarely penalised). See the intro to the laws. It _is_ wrong not to state your line of play.

I guess what some of us are having an issue with is that at times a detailed explanation might take longer than actually playing out the hand. For example, last night my last 7 cards were 4 good trump (the other 9 had been played) and 3 minor suit cards. Dummy had AK in one minor, A in the other and 4 other non-trump. I was on lead and faced my hand stating that I would win the 3 honor tricks in dummy, leaving me with 4 good trump. Did I really need to go into more detail?

In my prior post where I had AQ of trump and the opponent on lead was known to have Kx, do I really need to explain that I whatever he leads I will play the lowest trump that tops his?

[mjj29]

jh51, on 2011-August-02, 14:08, said:

I guess what some of us are having an issue with is that at times a detailed explanation might take longer than actually playing out the hand. For example, last night my last 7 cards were 4 good trump (the other 9 had been played) and 3 minor suit cards. Dummy had AK in one minor, A in the other and 4 other non-trump. I was on lead and faced my hand stating that I would win the 3 honor tricks in dummy, leaving me with 4 good trump. Did I really need to go into more detail?

And saying "I'm going to win the three honours in dummy and then the 4 trumps in hand" is a clear statement of the line of play and doesn't take any time at all

jh51, on 2011-August-02, 14:08, said:

In my prior post where I had AQ of trump and the opponent on lead was known to have Kx, do I really need to explain that I whatever he leads I will play the lowest trump that tops his?

"I'll cover whatever you lead and the other one is good"?

Sure, when it comes down to only two cards it usually is clear and nothing needs to be said - but on the other hand, it's not exactly hard to state a line anyway.

[jallerton]

mjj29, on 2011-July-29, 18:07, said:

To make it clear, yes the laws require you to accompany your claim "at once" with a "clear statement of the order the cards are to be played" (L68C). While it is an often-flouted and rarely-penalised law, it is still there and Mike Flader is wrong

jallerton, on 2011-July-30, 04:14, said:

Can anyone recall a claim at their table where declarer has stated exactly which specific cards he intends to play to every remaining trick from both his own hand and dummy?

mjj29, on 2011-July-31, 17:46, said:

I very rarely say "They're all good" - instead I'll say "dummy has 3 good spades, two hearts and a club". I might in very obvious situations say "crossruff", but I'm more likely to say "I can ruff the spades on table and the hearts in hand" - which while not strictly in the correct order, since I need to cross back and forth, it does at least specify clearly what's happenning to each card...

That's my point. Not even you comply with the strict wording of Law 68C. You do not make a "clear statement of the order cards are to be played". Granted, you may a clear statement as to how you propose to make the number of tricks claimed (and your claim statements are probably more detailed than 99% of claims made by other people), but you do not specify the order.

So to answer Ed's original question, strictly speaking Mike Flader is incorrect; but in practice it is accepted by virtually all players that complete claim statements are not necessary.

[Cascade]

jallerton, on 2011-August-03, 12:21, said:

That's my point. Not even you comply with the strict wording of Law 68C. You do not make a "clear statement of the order cards are to be played". Granted, you may a clear statement as to how you propose to make the number of tricks claimed (and your claim statements are probably more detailed than 99% of claims made by other people), but you do not specify the order.

So to answer Ed's original question, strictly speaking Mike Flader is incorrect; but in practice it is accepted by virtually all players that complete claim statements are not necessary.

I am lost.

Is the consensus that "A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order
in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which
the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed."

does not mean that the "order in which cards will be played" and "the line of play" are not alternatives.

The language is confusing but it always seemed to me that these were alternatives and "defence" was there to cater for defensive claims.

[mjj29]

jallerton, on 2011-August-03, 12:21, said:

That's my point. Not even you comply with the strict wording of Law 68C. You do not make a "clear statement of the order cards are to be played". Granted, you may a clear statement as to how you propose to make the number of tricks claimed (and your claim statements are probably more detailed than 99% of claims made by other people), but you do not specify the order.

You don't think they count as "The line of play" ?

[jallerton]

Cascade, on 2011-August-03, 13:57, said:

I am lost.

Is the consensus that "A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order
in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which
the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed."

does not mean that the "order in which cards will be played" and "the line of play" are not alternatives.

The language is confusing but it always seemed to me that these were alternatives and "defence" was there to cater for defensive claims.

Law 68C does NOT say "A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, or of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed."

Maybe that's what it ought to say, but we have to use the wording of the Laws as written.

In the actual wording, the "of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed" clause does not release the claimer from his requirement to accompany the claim "at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played".

[barmar]

Is that sentence in 68C even grammatically correct as written?

Every time I see it, I can't help thinking that "of" is a typo for "or". I've gotten so used to auto-correcting spelling/grammar errors on the Internet.

[WellSpyder]

barmar, on 2011-August-03, 17:54, said:

Is that sentence in 68C even grammatically correct as written?

Every time I see it, I can't help thinking that "of" is a typo for "or". I've gotten so used to auto-correcting spelling/grammar errors on the Internet.

I think it is pointless to argue about exactly what the words as written actually mean since there is no way accurately to parse the sentence - as you suggest it is not grammatically correct whatever it is suppose to mean. Either the "of" should be "or" or there should be an additional "of" before the existing "or". So let's interpret it in a common sense way and accept that it is acceptable to provide a line of play without a precise order of cards, provided that it does not lead to any ambiguity that might affect the number of tricks taken.

[gordontd]

WellSpyder, on 2011-August-04, 01:45, said:

- as you suggest it is not grammatically correct whatever it is suppose to mean.

It doesn't seem grammatically incorrect to me, even though its intended meaning is not very clear.

[WellSpyder]

gordontd, on 2011-August-04, 02:16, said:

It doesn't seem grammatically incorrect to me, even though its intended meaning is not very clear.

Oh, sorry, perhaps I should have been more careful to explain why I said this. So here goes, with apologies to those for whom this is entirely tedious....

I think it is grammatically acceptable when you have a list preceded by a preposition either to put the preposition before the first item of the list only, or before each item of the list. But it doesn't make sense to put the preposition before some of the items but not all. To take a random example, I could say "I am thinking about a, b, c and d" or "I am thinking about a, about b, about c and about d". But if I said "I am thinking about a, about b, and c and about d" then I would argue that this is three sets of thoughts, one of which is a another of which is b and c, and the third of which is d, rather than four separate sets of thoughts.

In the actual sentence we are trying to parse, "as to" is equivalent to "of". So a statement is required "of a, of b or c", which doesn't make sense because it reads like a list of two alternatives without a conjunction between them. If it means EITHER a OR (b OR C) then it should read "of a, or of b or c". If it means any one of a, b, or c then it could read "of a, b or c" or it could read "of a, of b or of c".

[bluejak]

Perhaps we might remember this is not BLML, and the aim is to help people give and understand rulings. It is expected that claims are accompanied by an adequate explanation: if declarer has four winning trumps and no other cards putting his hand down without comment is an adequate explanation. The grammar behind this does not matter.

If the explanation leads to doubt it is inadequate and is liable to get a ruling in favour for the non-claimers.

[gordontd]

WellSpyder, on 2011-August-04, 03:46, said:

Oh, sorry, perhaps I should have been more careful to explain why I said this. So here goes, with apologies to those for whom this is entirely tedious....

I think it is grammatically acceptable when you have a list preceded by a preposition either to put the preposition before the first item of the list only, or before each item of the list. But it doesn't make sense to put the preposition before some of the items but not all. To take a random example, I could say "I am thinking about a, b, c and d" or "I am thinking about a, about b, about c and about d". But if I said "I am thinking about a, about b, and c and about d" then I would argue that this is three sets of thoughts, one of which is a another of which is b and c, and the third of which is d, rather than four separate sets of thoughts.

In the actual sentence we are trying to parse, "as to" is equivalent to "of". So a statement is required "of a, of b or c", which doesn't make sense because it reads like a list of two alternatives without a conjunction between them. If it means EITHER a OR (b OR C) then it should read "of a, or of b or c". If it means any one of a, b, or c then it could read "of a, b or c" or it could read "of a, of b or of c".

I don't think it means either of those things. We use this construction "...of..., of..." when we're illustrating the first part with the second, and there's some overlap but they aren't identical.

"I'll tell you of my childhood, of holidays with my grandparents", which could alternatively be "I'll tell you of my childhood, of holidays with my parents or grandparents".

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2011-August-04, 04:37, said:

Perhaps we might remember this is not BLML, and the aim is to help people give and understand rulings.

If that's the sole function of this forum, the entire thread, including Blackshoe's original question, is off-topic. If a moderator posts a question that is off-topic, it seems unreasonable for another moderator to object to replies that are pertinent, and therefore also off-topic.